F 210 
. R9964 
Copy 1 


The South Must Have Her 
Rightful Place in History 


“ Wlu n time shall have softened passion and prejudice; when 
reason shall hare stripped her mask from misrepresentation , then 
justice holding evenly her scales, will require much of past cen¬ 
sure and praise to change places ."— Jefferson Davis. 



Mildred Lewis Rutherford 

II 


Athens, Georgia 


March, 


1923 








INDEX 


Tiio 


Page 


Abraham Lincoln not the Preserver of the Union- 3 

Abraham Lincoln’s rightful place in history- 4 


Violations of the Constitution under Lincoln’s Administra¬ 


tion _ 

Gen. Beauregard demands the surrender of Sumter 

Pledge made to.Lincoln’s party before election- 

Was Abraham Lincoln humane?_ 

Democrat suspects arrested_ T - 

Attitude of South to slavery_ 

Negro education in the South before the war_ 

The South’s attitude to freedom_ 

Lincoln’s attitude to freedom_ 

Plan to send negroes to Panama_ 

Estimate of Lincoln before his death_:_ 

Violations of Constitution by Lincoln_ 

Joint Resolution to legalize illegal acts_ 

Lincoln not religious _ 

Lincoln not a prohibitionist_ 

Horace Greeley’s opinion of Lincoln_ 

Should the South adore Abraham Lincoln?_ 

Opinion of the press before his death_ 

Lincoln exalted after his assassination_ 

Contrary opinions _ 

Unreliable history by glorifiers_ 

The villification of Jefferson Davis_ 

The South must have her rightful place_ 

President Davis as a Christian_ 

Was the South fighting to hold her slaves?_ 

Are we cowards if we fail to stand for the truth?__ 


9 

_ 12 
_ 14 
15 
_ 17 
_ 18 
_ 19 
_ 19 
_ 21 
_ 22 
22-24 
_ 24 
_ 26 


28 

30 


30 


__ 35 

38, 39 

__ 40 

__ 43 
__ 43 

.46, 47 
__ 49 
50 


• • • 


cm 

Aiathar 
*Pff 24 






























F5.m 'rfz>3- f 


The South Must Have Her Rightful Place 

in History 


When Pilate asked our Lord, “Wha't is truth?” our Lord 
did not answer, because He knew Pilate did not wish to know the 
truth. When Ilis disciples asked Him, “What is truth?” He 
replied: “I am the Truth.” 

Now there are many people, who like Pilate ask for truth, hut 
really do not wish it and will not receive it. Unless truth is 
sought and given in the spirit of the Christ, it is not truth. 

False history accepted as truth destroys civilization. For over 
sixty years the civilization of the South has been almost destroy¬ 
ed by the falsehoods written about it, and now when one has 
in hand the authenticated facts to prove these falsehoods to be 
false, many of our own Southern people as well as the press, 
largely responsible for them, are unfair and say, “It will do no 
good 'to bring these facts to light, for you will only stir up 
strife.” Why not stir up strife, rather than allow these false¬ 
hoods to forever remain in history? Shall fear of attacks from 
those responsible for them silence us? Have we lost our cour¬ 
age ? 

The truth is all we ask, and when proven that what we have 
said is not true, then we will retract. 

Prejudice has no part in history. I am not prejudiced against 
Abraham Lincoln, but if the falsehoods concerning him are 
balking the righting of Southern history, shall I, as a Southern 
historian, remain silent lest I offend one of his adorers? 

The South is no longer willing to stand the misrepresentations 
and omissions of history, and a fair-minded North should not 
blame the South, and should be ready to hear her side of the 
story, provided it is given from authenticated facts. 

General Lee said: 

“Every one should do all in his power to collect and dis¬ 
seminate the truth, in the. hope that it may find a place in 
history and descend to posterity.” 

“History is not the relation of campaigns, and battles, 
and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the 
principles for which the South contended and which justi¬ 
fied her struggle for those principles.” 



General Lee showed he was far more concerned that the cause 
should be vindicated than that he should be glorified or any act 
of his or others be magnified. 

Benjamin H. Hill felt great concern about this question. He 
said: 

“We owe it to our dead, to our living, and to our children 
to preserve the truth and repel the falsehoods, so that we 
may secure just judgment from the only tribunal before 
which we may appear and be fully and fairly heard, and 
that tribunal is the bar of history. ’ ’ 

Had the South followed this advice we would not today, after 
sixty or more years have passed, be obliged to correct these false¬ 
hoods of history. Falsehoods circulated not only in our own 
country, but now widely circulated in foreign countries. 

The South has been very patient, but can afford to be patient 
no longer—she must demand that the truth be told, and the 
truth is all she asks. 

She desires that the truth be told in such a way that peace 
between the sections shall be the result. Peace cannot come 
until the truth is known and acknowledged by both North and 
South. 

The cry is, “Let Abraham Lincoln alone. He is entrenched 
in the minds and hearts of the people of both sectioiijS— you 
cannot make a change now.” The change must he made. The 
time has fully come when the South especially should know the 
truth about Abraham Lincoln. 

If all that has been said of him by his biographers, since 
Lamon and Herndon wrote, be true, then the South is not worth 
defending. The Confederate Veteran had best take off his Cross 
of Honor, and the Memorial Associations, Daughters of the Con¬ 
federacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Children of the 
Confederacy had best disband, for Lincoln 's glorifiers teach that 
the cause for which Jefferson Davis and his followers stood was 
unworthy and should have been defeated. 

They teach that the Constitution stood for a National Govern¬ 
ment and not for a Compact between sovereign states. 

They teach that the advocates of secession were “traitors to 
the United States government," and should have been hanged 
when the war ended. 

They teach that the war was a “Civil War,” because we were 
not a Republic of Sovereign States—but a Nation. 


2 


lliey teach that the South fought to hold their slaves, and that 
the slaveholders were barbarous and cruel. 

They teach that Abraham Lincoln cut the shackles of slaverv 

«/ 

by his Emancipation Proclamation and set the slaves free. 

they teach that had it not been for Abraham Lincoln’s Eman¬ 
cipation Proclamation the slaves would never have been freed. 

They teach that the Confederate government was formed to 
destroy the Union, and but for Abraham Lincoln’s “wise poli¬ 
cies” the Union would never have been preserved. 

They teach that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was the 
worst blow that could have befallen the South, for Abraham 
Lincoln’s policies would have prevented the horrors of Recon¬ 
struction. 

They teacli that Abraham Lincoln was a friend to the South 
and a friend to the negro. 

Are these things true? No, all are falsehoods! 

Abraham Lincoln is represented in history and in literature as 
“The Preserver of the Union.” If this be true then we must 
acknowledge that the South fought to destroy the Union. 

For this falsehood of historv we will never stand. 

«/ 

What political party stood for destroying the United States 
Constitution which created the Union. Lincoln’s. 

What political party continued to violate that Constitution 
after war was declared ? Lincoln’s. 

What political party said, “Let us burn the Constitution, it is 
a compact with death and a league with hell?” Lincoln’s. 

What political party desired a dissolution of the Union and 
urged war to enforce it? Lincoln’s. 

What political party was guilty of 17 distinct violations of the 
Constitution? Lincoln’s. 

What political party had no violation of the Constitution 
against it? Davis’. 

What political party urged and implored that the Union be 
preserved by the Constitution so that war might be averted? 
Davis’. 

No, President Lincoln, nor his party preserved the Union by 
the Constitution. A Union pinned together by bayonets was the 
result at Appomattox, and a torn and tattered Constitution is 
our inheritance from Lincoln’s administration. 

Happiness and peace will never be ours until a party is put 


3 


in power that will see that the Constitution of our fathers is 
protected as a sacred instrument, and the decisions of the Su¬ 
preme Court are considered the highest law of the land. Then 
and then only will the Union be preserved in its integrity. 

Had the South won in 1865 no amendments to the Constitu¬ 
tion would have been necessary. 

The North won. How many amendments became absolutely 
necessary ? 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN MUST HAVE HIS RIGHTFUL PLACE 

IN HISTORY 

Now the life of Abraham Lincoln, as it is written today, is 
false history. The South can never have justice until he is 
dethroned, and he can only be dethroned by proving from abso¬ 
lute authority these falsehoods to be false. He must have his 
rightful place in history, if the South ever expects to have her 
rightful place in history. 

Wherein can be proven these teachings of present day history 
to be false? The answer will be found in “Truths of History,” 
taken from Northern authority. 

Was Abraham Lincoln a f riend to the South or teas he a friend 
to the slaves of the South f 

If you will study true history, you will find that he was not 
a friend of the South or of the negroes up to the time of his 
assassination. Then why could it be thought that he would be a 
friend later had he lived, but rather that he would have carried 
out the schemes of conquest by further unconstitutional meth¬ 
ods and falsehoods? 

Remember his double dealing with Virginia after the fall 
of Richmond. 

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States 
in 1860 by an avowedly anti-South Party without an electoral 
vote from the South. 

In his campaign speeches he had promised everything that 
any party or section demanded—showing that his promises could 
not be relied upon. 

Hear what he said in a speech January 27, 1837: 

“Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well- 
wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution 
never to violate in the least particular the laws of the coun¬ 
try, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the 


4 


patriots of 76 did to the support of the Declaration of In¬ 
dependence, and so to the support of the Constitution and 
laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and 
his sacred honor—let every man remember that to violate 
the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear 
the charter of his own and children’s liberty. Let reverence 
for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the 
lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in 
schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in 
primers, in spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be 
preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, 
and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it be¬ 
come the political religion of the nation.” 

This is a fine speech. See what Lincoln said, then see what 
Lincoln did. How could .lie be trusted? 

There were 10 distinct violations of the Constitution by Abra¬ 
ham Lincoln. 

VIOLATIONS OF U. S. CONSTITUTION UNDER LINCOLN S 

ADMINISTRATION 

Coercion in 1861. Article IY r ., Sec. IV. 

Laws of Neutrality—Trent Affair. Article VI., Clause 2— 
Violation of International Law. 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Suspended. Article I., Sec. IX., 
Clause 2. 

War Was Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. 
Article I., Section VIII., Clauses 11, 12. 

Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV., Section III., 
Clause 2. 

West Virginia Made a State. Article IV., Section III., 
Clause 1. 

The Freedom of Speech Denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in 
Ohio. Amendments—Article I. 

Blockading Ports of States that Were Held by the Federal 
Government to be still in the Union. 

The Liberty of the Press Taken Away. -Amendments —Article 

I. 

Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV., Sec. II., 
Clause 3. 

How did his actions tally with his words? Was this honest 
dealing? 

Godwin, of “The Nation,” says: 


<► 


5 


“The first real breach in the Constitution was President 
Lincoln’s using his war power to abolish slavery.” 

Thad Stevens: 

“I will not stultify myself by supposing that Mr. Lin¬ 
coln has any warrant in the Constitution for dismembering 
Virginia.” 

McClure, his friend, said: 

“Mr. Lincoln swore to obey the Constitution, but in 
eighteen months violated it by his Emancipation Procla¬ 
mation. ’ ’ 

Mr. Rhodes (Yol. IV., p. 213), says: 

“There was no authority for the Proclamation by the 
Constitution and laws—nor was there any statute that 
warranted it. ” 

Wendell Phillips, at the Cooper Institute, 1864, said: 

“I judge Mr. Lincoln b}- his acts, his violations of the 
law, his overthrow of liberty in the Northern States. 

“I judge Mr. Lincoln by his words, his deeds, and so 
judging him, I am unwilling to trust Abraham Lincoln with 
the future of this country.” 

Percy Gregg said: 

“Lincoln never hesitated to violate the Constitution when 
he so desired. The Chief Justice testified to this. Lincoln 
suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861; he allowed 
West Virginia to be formed from Virginia contrary to the 
Constitution; he issued his Emancipation Proclamation 
without consulting his Cabinet and in violation of the Con¬ 
stitution.” 

Charles Sumner said: 

“When Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter and called for 
75,000 men without the consent of Congress, it was the 
'greatest breach ever made in the Constitution, and would 
hereafter give the President the liberty to declare war when¬ 
ever he wished without the consent of Congress.” 

He had no respect for the decision of the Supreme Court, 
the highest law in the land. 

J. G. Holland’s “Life of Lincoln p. 284: 

“The South stood by the decisions of the Supreme Court 
—the North did not and Lincoln did not.” 

Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Institute Speech: 

“In spite of Judge Taney’s decision, Congress did not 
have a right to prohibit slavery in’the territories.” 

Lincoln’s Inaugural Address: 

“If the decisions of the Supreme Court are irrevocably 

6 


fixed, then the people cease to. be their own masters, and 
practically resign their government into the hands of that 
eminent tribunal.” 

I o pander to the South’s vote, he openly said that any state 
had the constitutional right to secede, if her rights were inter¬ 
fered with. Yet as soon as he was elected he denied this and 
began to plan to coerce the seceding states back into the Union. 

He had openly said that coercion was not constitutional, yet 
he called without the consent of his Cabinet or Congress, 75,000 
men to begin the coercion act. 

He gave as his excuse he could not afford to do without the 
revenue from the Southern States, and must prevent their 
withdrawal, right or wrong. This was the cunning that Seward 
said amounted to genius. 

While insisting that the states were still in the Union, on 
July 19, 1861, he declared a blockade, which brought untold 
suffering and privation to the South. No nation can blockade 
her own ports. 

When England and France declared neutrality, Lincoln, fear¬ 
ing they would later acknowledge the seceding states as a Con¬ 
federacy, issued his Emancipation Proclamation in the hope of 
conciliating them, though he acknowledged that he thought “it 
would result in the massacre of the women and children in the 
South.” 

When the South, not desiring war, made every effort for 
peace, he blocked every effort that was made. 

When he learned of the Crittenden Resolutions before he was 
inaugurated, he sent word to every Republican member of Con¬ 
gress to vote against them. (Lord Charn wood’s “Life of Lin¬ 
coln”) . 

When he learned of the Peace Convention presided over by 
Ex-President Tyler, he sent Salmon P. Chase to represent him, 
instructed to vote against every compromise, especially , against 
the return of fugitive slaves. (Lord Charnwood’s “Life of 
Lincoln”). 

Yet this was the man who had said at Peoria, Ill., in 1854: 

‘ 1 The slaveholder has a legal and moral right. to his 
slaves. Fairly and fully I will give them any legislation 
for reclaiming their fugitive slaves. The master has the 
right to seize the runaway slave in every state in the 
Union.” 


7 


When itlie Virginia Convention pleaded for peace, he sent 
word by Baldwin to say “it was too late for peace.”— “Atlantic 
Monthly,” April, 1875. (Magruder and Baldwin). 

He did not send word why it was too late, for at that time 
four expeditions were on the way to Sumter and Pickens to force 
war. 

He refused to see the Peace Commissioners sent by the Con¬ 
federate government to plead for peace—but through Seward 
and Judge Campbell he kept them deceived until war had been 
declared. {“War of Rebellion,” Ser. I, Vol. IV., p. 259). 

Abraham Lincoln did not want peace for he had promised 
coercion, which meant war. He knew, too, that the South would 
never stand for his administration. 

What were those four expeditions he had already sent? 

Mr. Johnstone's “Truth of the War Conspiriacy of 1861” 
will tell you all about it. Read it. (H. W. Johnstone, Curry - 
ville, Ga.; 50 cents). 

An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina 
and the United States government, December 6, 1860. A sim* 
ilar armistice had been entered into between Florida and the 
United States government, January 29, 1861. These armistices 
agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be 
garrisoned nor provisioned so long as these armistices continued 
in force. 

Papers to this effect had been tiled in the United States Army 
and Navy Departments and Abraham Lincoln knew this— hence 
his secret orders. 

To violate an armistice is a treacherous act of war. This is 
acknowledged by all nations. 

Before his inauguration he had sent a confidential message 
to General Winfield Scott to be ready, when his inauguration, 
March 4, 1861, should take place, to hold or retake the forts. 
(Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Hon. E. B. Washburn, dated 
Springfield, Ill., December 21, 1860). 

He had in mind then to break this armistice. 

One of the agreements of an armistice was that no person, 
friend nor foe, could visit the forts while the terms of the 
armistice were in force. 

President Abraham Lincoln sent Lieutenant Worden with a 
secret message to Captain Adams at Fort Pickens. This wcos an 


8 


(Id of a spy. President Lincoln, March 12th, directed Mont¬ 
gomery Blair, one of his Cabinet, to telegraph to G. V. Fox to 
come to Washington to arrange for reinforcing Fort Sumter. 


G. Ah Fox, on March 15th, was sent to Fort Sumter, and ar¬ 
ranged with Anderson for reinforcement. This was an act of a 
spy. Lainon had also been sent secretly to Charleston to confer 
with Anderson. This was also the act of a spy. 

On March 29th, Abraham Lincoln ordered three ships with 
300 men and provisions to be ready to go to Fort Sumter— all 
orders were marked private. A fourth expedition was secretly 
sent to Pensacola under Lieutenant Porter, April 7th, on which 
date the three vessels were directed to go to Fort Sumter and 
on that same day President Lincoln directed Seward to say to 


the Peace Commissioners, “no design to 


i vi nj u i w toil oumbei 


In short there were four expeditions ordered to garrison and 
provision Forts Sumter and Pickens while the armistice was yet 
in force. 


Not until sufficient time had elapsed to suppose that the vessels 
had landed were the Peace Commissioners informed of these 
facts. 


Fortunately a storm delayed some of the ships. When the 
Confederate government was informed of this treachery, per¬ 
mission was given to General Beauregard to demand the sur¬ 
render of Fort Sumter. 


Anderson was ordered to surrender the fort. He refused until 
he could receive orders from the United States authorities. 

General Beauregard sent word that unless the fort was sur¬ 
rendered within a certain time it would be fired upon. It was 
not surrendered and the shot was fired, and war began. 

Who was responsible? No one but Abraham Lincoln, Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, who on his own authority, without the 
consent of Cabinet or Congress, declared war by breaking the 
armistice agreed upon and forcing the Confederate troops to fire* 


* 'Abraham Lincoln never hesitated to assume authority without 
consultation with Cabinet or Congress. On April 1st. he sent a secret 
message to the Commandant at Navy Yard, Brooklyn, N. Y., to fit 
out the Powhatan without delay. In this message he said: “You 
will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department 
this fact.’’ (War of Rebellion Records, Vol. 4, p. 109). 


9 



This is the truth as the War Records at Washington have it. 
(Ser. 1, Yol. IV., pp. 90-259). 

Hallam, in his Constitutional History, says: 

“The aggressor in war is not the first that uses force , 
but the first who renders force necessary 

President Lincoln sent a note to each member of the Cabinet 
asking advice about holding Fort Sumter. Two may be said to 
have voted for it. Blair favored it; Chase was doubtful. He 
said, “I will oppose any attempt to reinforce Sumter, if it means 
war,” but the others voted decidedly against it. Notice, Lincoln 
did not call a Cabinet meeting—and he did not call his Congress. 
Why? He knew that neither would favor war. 

Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, said: 

“There was not a man in the Cabinet that did not know 
that an attempt to reinforce Sumter would be the first, blow 
of war.” 

And again he said: 

“Of all the Cabinet Blair only is in favor of reinforcing 
Sumter. ’ ’ 

William Seward, Secretary of State, said: 

“Even preparation to reinforce will precipitate war. I 
would instruct Anderson to return from Sumter.” 

General Bragg said: 

“They have placed an engineer officer at Fort Pickens to 
violate, as I consider, our agreement not to reinforce.” 

“History of the American Nation,” Hosmer; Yol. xx., p. 20: 

“The determination expressed by Lincoln in his Inaugu¬ 
ral Address to hold, occupy and possess the property and 
places belonging to the United States precipitated the out¬ 
break, and his determination to collect duties and imports 
was practically an announcement of an offensive war.” 

The New York Express said, April 15, 1861: 

“The people petitioned and pleaded, begged and im¬ 
plored Lincoln and Seward to be heard before matters were 
brought to a blood}" extreme, but their petitions were sprun- 
ed and treated with contempt.” 

In “The Opening of the Twentieth Century,” these words are 
found: 

“The war was inaugurated by the North on an unconsti¬ 
tutional basis, and defended on an unconstitutional basis.” 

The New York Herald, April 7, 1861: 

“Unless Mr. Lincoln's Administration makes the first 
demonstration and attack, President Davis says there will 


10 


be no bloodshed. With Mr. Lincoln’s Administration, there¬ 
fore, rests the responsibility of precipitating a collision, and 
the fearful evils of protracted war.” 

The New York Herald , April 5, 1861: 

“We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at 
Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two 
forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of 
throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility 
of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity 
will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first 
blow.” 

Governor Moore, of Alabama, says: 

“I have had a conference with Secretary Mallory of Flor¬ 
ida, and Secretary Fitzpatrick of Alabama, in which they 
informed me that they and Secretary Slidell had a personal 
interview with the President and the Secretary of the Navy 
and were assured by them that no attack would be made 
upon Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens or any excuse given for 
the shedding of blood during the present administration.” 
(Cousin & Hill, p. 371). 

Stephen Douglas said: 

• 

“Lincoln is frying to plunge the country into a cruel war 
as the surest means of destroying the Union upon the plea 
of enforcing the laws and protecting public property.” 

Zack Chandler -wrote to Governor Blair : 

“The manufacturing states think a war will be awful, 
but without a little blood-letting the Union will not be worth 
a curse. ” 

Benjamin Williams, of Lowell, Mass., said: 

“The South was invaded and a war of subjugation was 
begun by the Federal government against the seceding 
states in amazing disregard of the foundation principle of 
its existence—and the South accepts the contest forced 
upon her with a courage characteristic of this proud-spirited 
people. ’ ’ 

Norton’s History , p. 109: 

“The first gun of the war was the gun put into that war 
fleet that sailed against Charleston. The first gun fired at 
Fort Sumter was the first gun in self-defense. This is the 
simple fact stripped of all nonsense with which it has been 
surrounded by Abolitionists.” 

J. D. Holland's “ Life of Lincoln :” 

“Up to the fall of Sumter Lincoln had no basis for action. 
If he had raised an army that would have been an act of 


11 


« 

hostility.that would have been coercion. A thousand North¬ 
ern papers would have pounced on him as a provoker of 
war. After Sumter fell he could declare war.” 

It is true many causes had led to the secession of the states, 
but none of these would have declared war. The South did not 


want war; the North did not want war, so Abraham Lincoln was 
responsible for bringing the crisis that forced war in order to 
please his anti-South party—one cannot truthfully deny this; 
the facts of history prove it. 

Mr. Lincoln had pledged his party, if elected he would, in 
case the Southern States seceded, coerce them back into the 


Union. (“The Makers of America,” p. 270). 

Piatt said: 

“Lincoln’s low estimate of humanity blinded him to the 
South. lie could not understand that men could tight for 
a principle. He thought this movement on the part of the 
South was only a political game of bluff.” 

It was said, “The South can’t fight. She has no resources.” 


Hanibal Hamlin said: 

“If they .fight they must come to us for arms, and the}^ 
must come without money to pay for them.” 

t/ -L 

Lincoln tried in every way to quiet the fears of his constit¬ 
uents, but when the states did secede he remembered his promise 
to coerce. (Woodburn & Moran). 

The leaders of the North, strong, just and brainy men, who 
while differing with the South along slavery and other lines polit¬ 
ical and commercial, stood for the Constitution and stood by 
the decisions of the Supreme Court, and they would never have 
taken up arms to coerce the Southern States —but when the cry 
was raised, “The flag has been fired upon,” they felt that their 
refusal to enlist might be misjudged, and many hired substitutes 
to take their place. There was nothing said when the flag was 
fired upon on the Star of the West in Buchanan’s Administra¬ 
tion. It was simply an excuse of Lincoln’s to fire the men of 
the North to take up arms. 

The following will show the spirit of the true men of the 
North at that time: 

“A committee was appointed to draw up resolutions to 
present .to the Massachusetts Legislature when sectional 
feeling was at its height. They calmly and deliberately 
weighed the arguments on the side of slaveholders, and 
then as calmly and deliberately weighed those on the side of 


12 


the Abolitionists. Then they came to a conclusion and said: 

‘Nothing which is not founded upon the eternal prin¬ 
ciples of truth and justice can .ever long prevail against an 
irresistible force of public disapprobation. Your committee 
feel that the conduct of the Abolitionists is not onlv wrong 
in policy but erroneous in morals. 

“ ‘Your committee are determined to fulfill their duty to 
the state and to our common country in the most firm and 
faithful manner. In remembering that while- they are men 
of Massachusetts, they are incapable of meanly forgetting 
that they also are Americans.’ ” (George Lunt, Chair¬ 
mans) . 


George Lunt in his “Origin of the Late War/ 1 said: 

9 

“Abraham Lincoln was not the choice of the people of 
the North. The Republican Party put him in power, be¬ 
cause he seemed to afford the prospect of more malleable 
material for their purposes 


This Anti-South Partv wanted a man from the lower class to 
humiliate 'the upper class. The lower class voted for him be¬ 
cause they were of his class, and the lower class are glorifying 
him today because they sympathize with him. 

Lincoln hated the aristocrats, whether they were slaveholders 
or not. This statement has been denied, but a man who headed 
the list of subscribers to John Brown’s Raid in Kansas and Vir¬ 
ginia, advocating murder and arson; and a man who telegraphed 
congratulations to’ Sherman, Sheridan, Grant and Hunter for 
cruel treatment to women and children; and a man who stood for 
destroying all food supplies, leaving white and hlack to starve ; 
and a man who allowed the women of New Orleans, La., to be 
treated with such indiginity by the order of Ben Butler; and a 
man who allowed negro troops to guard and fire upon South¬ 
ern prisoners, could not have had love but abounding hate in 
his heart for the South. ( Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 
Yol. x., p. 190). 


Nor could a man who advocated Parson Brownlow for the 
Governor of a Southern State, after- hearing his New York 
speech, love the people he wished to put him to rule over. This 
is what Brownlow said: 


“If I had the power I would arm every wolf, panther, 
catamount and tiger in the mountains of America; every 
negro in the Southern Confederacy, and every devil m hoi 1 
and turn them on the rebels in the South. 


“1 wpuld like to see Richmond and Charleston captured 
by negro troops commanded by Butler the Beast and driven 
into the Gulf of Mexico to be drowned as the devils did the 
hogs in the Sea of Galilee.’ 7 (Long and loud applause). 

And later when he was made Governor of Tennessee said: 

“If I could I would divide the army going South into 
three divisions. 1st, with knives to do the killing; 2nd, with 
torches dipped in spirits of turpentine to do the burning; 
and 3rd, with compasses to divide the land.” 

Had Abraham Lincoln forgotten his Inaugural Address. 
March, 1861 ? 

“The Republican Party placed in the platform for my 
acceptance and as a law to themselves and me, the clear and 
emphatic resolution which I now read: 

‘ “Resolved: That the maintenance of the rights of the 
states, and especially the right of each state to order and 
control its own domestic institutions, according to its own 
judgment exclusively, is essential to (that balance of power 
in which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric 
depend: and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed 
forces of the soil of any state, or territory, no matter under 
ivhat pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” 

These messages of congratulation for lawless invasion of the 
South by armed forces make him a criminal. 

/ 

WAS ABRAHAM LINCOLN HUMANE? 

i 

Abraham Lincoln was not humane in his treatment of the 
Andersonville prisoners. He refused medicine, making it a con¬ 
traband of war, medicine that was necessary to relieve itheir suf¬ 
ferings, and even refused to relieve them from their horrid con¬ 
gested condition, when the Southern authorities were willing to 
send them home without exchange. As Commander-in-Chief of 
the Army by a word he could have done this. 

New York Herald, October 29, 1864; 

“Abraham Lincoln indicted for cruelty to our soldiers 
in Southern prisons. He is held responsible for it all. 

“Abraham Lincoln could be indicted and arraigned for 
the crime against justice and humanity. There is not an 
impartial jury in the land that would hesitate to pronounce 
him guilty of murder in the first degree. He now stands 
before the great court of the Nation for that crime and 
other offenses against the laws and liberties of the country. 
The people will soon render against him 'the verdict of 


14 


guilty, and the sentence of banishment and power and in¬ 
delible disgrace will be passed and executed upon him.” 

Percy Gregg said: 

“Lincoln’s order that Confederate commissions or letters 
of marque granted to private or public ships should be dis¬ 
regarded and their crews treated as pirates, and all medi¬ 
cines declared contraband of war, violated every rule of 
civilized war and outraged the conscience of Christendom. 

“Lincoln never hesitated to violate the Constitution when 
he so desired. The Chief Justice testified to this. Lincoln 
suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861; he allowed 
West Virginia to be formed from Virginia contrary to the 
Constitution; he issued his Emancipation Proclamation 
without consulting his Cabinet and in violation of the Con¬ 
stitution. ” 

He did not interfere when Seward refused to let the South¬ 
ern men in Northern prisons have the $85,000 sent by the women 
of England in loving sympathy with Southern prisoners. 

Abraham Lincoln was not humane in his treatment of those 
Democrat suspects in regard to Freedom of Speech —Vallandig- 
ham in Ohio, for instance. He said the South was right—that 
was all. 

James Ford Rhodes* History, Vol. III., p. 232: 

“Mr. Lincoln stands responsible for the casting into 
prisons citizens of the United States on orders as arbitrary 
as the Lettres de Cachet of Louis XIV. of France, instead 
of their arrest as in Great Britain in her crisis on legal ar¬ 
rests. ’ ’ 

Frederic Bancroft in his “Life of Seward,” says in Vol. II., 
p. 254: 

“Some of the features of these arbitrary arrests bore 
a striking resemblance to the odious institutions of the an¬ 
cient regime of France—the Bastile and Lettres de Cachet.” 

Judge Jeremiah Black in his “Essays,” p. 153, says: 

“Of the wanton cruelties that Lincoln’s Administration 
has afflicted upon unoffending citizens, I have neither space, 
nor skill, nor time, to paint them. Since the fall of Robe¬ 
spierre nothing has occurred to cast such disrepute on Re¬ 
publican institutions. ” 

In Galena, Ill., Mr. Lincoln urged the Hon. Madison V. John¬ 
son to join the Abolition Party. He declined. Mr. Lincoln told 
him he could have anything he desired if he would consent, for 
he regretted to part with him more than any man in that section 
of the state. Mr. Johnson replied that his political views like 


15 


his religious views were not a matter of barter. A little later 
Mr. Johnson was arrested on a telegraphic dispatch signed by 
Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, without any cause being 
assigned and he was sent a thousand miles away and incarcerated 
in the dark walls of an American Bastile, put into a low, dirty, 
ill-ventilated room, and closely guarded and all personal things 
taken from him. To enter that fort was equivalent to being dead 
to the outside world. It was never known what caused his ar¬ 
rest. No specific charge was ever brought against him, and all 
that could ever be learned was that the act teas directed by the 
President himself as a military necessity. (State of Illinois, 
Supreme Court, 3r‘d Grand Division, April Term A. D. 1866). 

Many instances of this kind can be given of the injustice of 
such arrests of Democrat suspects at that time. American Bas- 
tiles, John A. Marshall). 

Abraham Lincoln did not love the negroes, and he was hypo¬ 
critical about what he said in their praise, and the negro to this 
day has never found out Lincoln’s hypocrisy—because for po¬ 
litical reasons it was best for the party that elected Lincoln to 
keep him deceived. 

The day is near at hand when the educated Christian negro 
will use his own knowledge and learn 'the truth. He will learn, 
too, that his truest friends are the Democrats of the South. He 
will learn at least that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation 
was never intended to free him, and that his freedom really 
came from his Southern people. 

It came, it is true, not in the way it had been planned—by 
gradual emancipation—but by the XIII. Amendment offered by 
John Brooks Henderson, of Missouri, after Lincoln’s death. 
Many Southern people like General Lee and his mother had 
either freed their slaves before the war or had it in their wills 
that they should be freed gradually. 

Did not Edward Coles, of Virginia, a large slaveholder, move 
to Illinois in 1819 to free his slaves and give to each of them 
165 acres of land? 

Did not John Randolph, of Roanoke, free his slaves, and buy 
territory in Ohio to place them after freedom? Did not that fine 
negro University at Zanesville, Ohio, result in large measure 
from this ? 

Did not Thomas Jefferson, when Virginia gave up her North- 


16 


west territory, make a proviso that the states formed from it— 
Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin should not be 
slave states? Did 'he not urge the slaveholders, after the Mis¬ 
souri Compromise, to free their slaves as rapidly as possible lest 
there should come sudden emancipation, which he prayed God 
he would never live to see ? 

Did not George Mason free his slaves, and George Washington 
say lie wished he could live to see every slave freed? 

Had the South been let alone the slaves would have been long 
ago freed and no ugly feeling ever would have existed between 
the former owners and their slaves. The South loved these peo¬ 
ple and were interested in their welfare. The South is the log¬ 
ical home of the negro. 

Congressional Records : 

‘‘Jefferson Davis when in the United States Senate, 
urged that a plan be made for emancipation that would be 
best for the slaveholders and the slave. This was why South¬ 
ern men were so insistent about securing more slave terri¬ 
tory to relieve the congested condition of the slave states 
that they might prepare the slaves as freed for their future 
government.'' 

Abraham Lincoln said: 

“Gradual emancipation was the best plan, and the North 
should not criticize too severely the Southern brethren for 
tardiness in this matter. 

“The Abolition Crusade which began at the time of the 
Missouri Compromise in 1820, and which reached an in¬ 
tense pitch in 1839, caused Southern men to withdraw mem¬ 
bership in abolition societies. 7 ’ 

ATTITUDE OF THE SOUTH TO SLAVERY 

In 1816, “The African Colonization Society” was organized 
with James Madison, a slaveholder, as president. Thomas Jeffer¬ 
son, a slaveholder, testifies that slaveholders were planning to 
free their slaves. 

When James Monroe became President he secured a tract of 
land about the size of Mississippi on the West coast of Africa, 
named Liberia, and its capital was called Monrovia to honor 
him, and to this the slaves as freed were to be sent. In 1847 
it became a Republic with only negroes as officers. 

“Many wills had been written in the South freeing the 
slaves by gradual emancipation. 


17 


“In 1860 there were 247,817 freed negroes in the South; 
there were 268,817 in the North. Virginia before that 
time had freed 58,042, Maryland 83,743, North Carolina 
30,462, and other states in smaller numbers—in all amount¬ 
ing to more than 247,817, for it was the custom when freed 
to go North, and the old owners encouraged it. 

“When war was declared in 1861 there were 3,950,531 
negroes as slaves in the South. To these faithful ones the 
200,000 slaveholders in the Southern Army and Navy en¬ 
trusted their loved ones. Lincoln’s Emancipation Procla¬ 
mation did not cause a Confederate soldier to return home 
for fear his loved ones would be massacred. 

“Many of the slaves in the South before the war belonged 
to Northern slaveholders. Girard, of Philadelphia, worked 
his slaves on a large sugar plantation in Louisiana. It was 
from the profits of this plantation Girard College was built. 
Hemmingway, of Boston, had his slaves on a plantation— 
not in the Southern States, but in Cuba—and his will left 
them to his daughter as late as 1870.” 

Richardson’s “ Defense of the South/’ p. 20: 

“Thomas Elkins, of Effingham County, Georgia, before 
1860, offered to free his slaves and send them back to Africa 
at his own expense and the slaves begged to let them remain 
with him. Among these slaves were the sons of African 
kings and princes. ” 

% 

Lundy’s “Universal Emancipation” : 

“There were before the Missouri Compromise, 1820, 106 
anti-slavery societies—with 5,150 members in the South, 
and 24 abolition societies in the North with onlv 920 mem- 
bers. ’ ’ 

General Lee said:' 

“There was no doubt that the blacks were immeasurably 
better off here than they were in Africa—morally, physically 
and socially.” 

He thought the freeing of them should be left in God’s hands 
and not be settled by tempestuous controversy. 

NEGRO EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH BEFORE THE WAR 

The South has been vilified for not educating the negro in the 
days of slavery. 

The South was giving to the negro the best passible education 
—that education that fitted him for the workshop, the field, the 
church, the kitchen, the nursery, the home. This was an edu¬ 
cation that taught the negro self-control, obedience and per¬ 
severance—yes, taught him to realize his weaknesses and how 


18 


to grow stronger for the battle of life. The institution of 
slavery as it was in the South, so far from degrading the negro, 
was fast elevating him above his nature and his race. 

Xo higher compliment was ever paid the institution of slavery 
than that by the North, which was willing to make the negro its 
social and political equal after one hundred years of civilization 
under Southern Christianizing intluence. Never has it been 
recorded in history such rapid civilization from savagery to 
Christian citizenship. 

The black man ought to thank the institution of slavery—.the 
easiest road that any slave people have ever passed from sav¬ 
agery to civilization with the kindest and most humane masters. 
Hundreds of thousands of the slaves in 1865 were professing 
Christians and many were partaking of the communion in the 
church of their masters. 

THE SOUTH’S ATTITUDE TO FREEDOM 

Southern men were anxious for the slaves to be free. They 
were studying earnestly the problems of freedom, when North¬ 
ern fanatical Abolitionists took the matter in their,own hands. 

Charles Francis Adams, Jr,, the historian, realized this and 
said: 

‘ ‘ Had the South been allowed to manage this question 
unfettered, the slaves would have been, ere this, fully eman¬ 
cipated and 'that without bloodshed or race problems. 

LINCOLN'S ATTITUDE TO FREEDOM 

Rhodes, in his “History of the United States, A ol. I\ ., p. 
314, says: 

“Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not issued 
from a humane standpoint. Lincoln hoped it would incite 
the negroes to rise against the women and children. 

“His Emancipation Proclamation was intended only as 
a punishment for the seceding states. It was with no 
thought of freeing the slaves of more than 300,000 slavehold¬ 
ers then in the Northern army. 

“His Emancipation Proclamation was issued for a four¬ 
fold purpose and it was issued with fear and trepidation 
lest he should offend his Northern constituents. He did it: 

1 i First: 

“Because of an oath—that if Lee should be driven from 
Maryland he would free the slaves. (Barnes and Guerber). 

‘ ‘ Second: 


19 


“The time of enlistment had expired for many men in 
the army and he hoped this would encourage their re-en¬ 
listment. 

‘ ‘ Third: 

“ Trusting that Southern men would be forced to return 
home to protect their wives and children from negro insur¬ 
rection. 

‘‘ Fourth: 

“Above all he issued it to prevent foreign nations from 
recognizing the Confederacy.” 

Not a negro in the states that did not secede was freed by 
Lincoln’s Proclamation and it had no effect even in the South 
as it was unconstitutional and Lincoln knew it. Many in the 
North resented it, and Lincoln was unhappy over the situation 
as Larnon testified. 

Wendell Phillips : 

“ Lincoln was badgered into emancipation. After lie is¬ 
sued it, he said it was the greatest folly of his life. It was 
like the Pope’s bull against the comet.” 

Was he satisfied with its effect? Let us see what happened. 

“McClure’s Magazine/’ January, 1893, p. 165; also Tarbell : 

“Many and many a man deserted in the winter of 1862- 
’65 because of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. The 
soldiers did not believe that Lincoln had the right to issue 
it. They refused to fight.” 

Lincoln was not thinking of the negro. He did not care 
whether the negro was freed or not. He had said: “Slavas are 
property, and if freed should be paid for.” He said: 

“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere 
with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. 
I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no in¬ 
clination to do so.” 

In his letter to Alexander Stephens, who wrote expressing 
his sympathy for him in the great responsibility resting upon 
him as President in those perilous days, he said: 

(“For your eye only 77 ). 

“Ho the people of the South really entertain fear that 
a Republican administration would directly or indirectly 
interfere with itheir slaves, or with them about their slaves? 
If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, 
I hope, not an enemy,'that there is no cause for such fears. 
The South would be in no more danger in this respect than 
it was in the days of Washington,” (Public and Private 
Letters of Alexander II. Stephens/ 7 p. 150). 


20 


He never stood for their social equality or political equality. 
In his speech at Charleston, III., 1858, Lincoln said: 

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing 
about in any way the social or political equality of the white 
and black races. 1 am not now nor ever have been in favor 
of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying 
them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. 
There is a physical difference between the white and black 
races which will forever forbid the two races living together 
on social or politcal equality. There must be a position of 
superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the 
superior position to the white man.” 

President Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation evidently 
had in mind to colonize or segregate the slaves if freed. 

‘‘It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, 
with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with 
the previously obtained consent of the government existing 
there. 

“From the time of his election as President he was striv¬ 
ing to find some means of colonizing the negroes. An ex¬ 
periment had been made of sending them to Liberia, but it 
was a failure, and he wished 'to try another colony, hoping 
that would be successful. He sent one colony to Cow Island 
under Koch as overseer, but he proved very cruel to the 
negroes and they begged to return. He then asked for an 
appropriation of money from Congress to purchase land in 
Central America, but Central America refused to sell and 
said: ‘Do not send the negroes here.’ The North said, ‘Do 
not send the negroes here.’ 

“It was agreed then that a Black Territory should be 
set apart for the segregation of the negroes in Texas, Mis¬ 
sissippi and South Carolina-—but Lincoln was unhappy and 
in despair—and he asked Ben Butler’s advice, saying: 

“ ‘If we turn 200,000 armed negroes in the South, among 
their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, 
it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. 
The negroes must be gotten rid of. ’ 

“Ben Butler said: ‘Why not send them to Panama to 
dig the canal?’ ” (See Butler’s Book). 

Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion, and asked Butler to 
consult Seward at once. Only a few days later John Wilkes 
Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounoed 
Seward. What would have been the result had Lincoln lived 
cannot be estimated. The faithful negroes would possibly have 
been sent to that place of yellow fever and malaiial dangers to 


21 


perish from the face of the earth, for we had no Gorgas of Ala¬ 
bama to study our sanitary laws for them at that time. 

*/ »/ 


ESTIMATE OF LINCOLN BEFORE HIS DEATH 


The South has always resented the falsehoods that have enter¬ 
ed the biographies of Lincoln since his assassination. 

Those who knew him in life knew him best. 


Schouler’s “ History of the United States” Vol. VI., p. 21: 

“People found in Lincoln before his death nothing re¬ 
markably good or great, but on the contrary found in him 
the reverse of goodness or greatness. 

“Lincoln as one of Fame’s immortals does not appear in 
the Lincoln of 1861.” 


Don Piatt’s “Reminiscences of Lincoln,”dp. 21: 

“Had Lincoln lived could he have justified the loss of 
more than a million lives and the destruction of more than 
eight billions of dollars of property on a Constitutional 
basis? Of course he could not, and would not have been 
considered worthy of the honors heaped on him because of 
his martyrdom. 

%/ , 
“I hear of Lincoln and read of him in eulogies and biog¬ 
raphies and fail to recognize the man I knew in private life 
before he became President of the United States.” 


When dealing with the Border States, he said: “ Slavery is 
not to he interfered with ” 

When dealing with the Republican Party, he said: “This 
country cannot remain half slave and half free.” 


When dealing with the Abolitionists, lie said: “This war is 
against slavery .” 

He sent word to Ben Butler in Xevv Orleans: “This war is not 
to free the slaves.” 


Simon Cameron, Lincoln's Secretary of War, wrote to Gen¬ 
eral Butler in New Orleans: 

“President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be 
fully recognized. The war is prosecuted for the Union 
hence no question concerning slavery will arise.” 

When dealing with Foreign Nations, Lincoln said: “The 
slaves must be emancipated.” 

When speaking as he thought to please the South, he said: 
“I have no desire to free the slave.” 

“1 have no Constitutional right to free the slaves ” 

“Jf I free the slaves they must he segregated.” 


22 



Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, says: 

“How can we justify the acts of Mr. Lincoln’s adminis¬ 
tration ? 

“An unconstitutional platform called for an unconstitu¬ 
tional policy. 

“An unconstitutional policy called for an unconstitu¬ 
tional coercion. 

“An unconstitutional coercion called for an unconstitu¬ 
tional war. 

“An unconstitutional war mailed for an unconstitutional 
despotism. 

“Authority uncontrolled and unlimited by men, by Con¬ 
stitution, by Supreme Court, or by law was Lincoln’s war 
policy.” 

Abraham Lincoln did not hesitate to violate the Constitution 
at any time. Nor did he hesitate to say that lie would not abide 
by the decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 
has always been acknowledged the highest tribunal of the land 

by all loval to the Constitution. 

«/ «/■ 

Did not John Fremont say that Abraham Lincoln with selfish 
disregard for the Constitution violated the Freedom of the Press f 

Did not Chief Justice Taney say that the President had un¬ 
constitutionally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpusf 
- When President Davis sent James M. Mason, of Virginia, and 
John Slidell, of Louisiana, to England to place the Confederacy 


in its true light before the European Nations, were not the Com¬ 
missioners seized and taken from the English ship Trent and im¬ 
prisoned at Fort Warren—thus violating the International Law 
of Neutrality? 

Did Abraham Lincoln think it wrong to violate the Laws of 
Neutrality? Not at all, but sent Captain Wilkes, the officer who 


seized the Commissioners, a gold medal as a reward. 

Had not Seward later realized what had been done, and the 
danger of offending England, and sent England an hasty apol¬ 
ogy. there is no telling what the consequences would have been. 

Lothrop tells m his book, p. 32o, that Seward could not con¬ 
ceal his gratification and approval of the act. McClellan was 
sent for and asked his opinion, and McClellan said: “‘Either you 
must surrender those prisoners or you will have war,with Eng¬ 
land, and war with England means we cannot hope to keep the 
South in the Union.” This put a new light on the subject and 

Seward became less joyous. 


Captain Wilkes had undoubtedly violated international law 
and had offered a gross insult to England. President Lincoln, 
the Cabinet and Congress, instead of rebuking him had rewarded 
him for it. The press and the pulpit had applauded him for it. 
The authorities at Washington said: “We will arbitrate the 
matter. ” England was in no humor to arbitrate. Her method 
was an ultimatum, “You surrender those prisoners and make 
an apology/’ and only seven days were given them to decide the 
matter. And if in seven days that matter was not decided, Lord 
Lyons was ordered to close the legation, remove the archives, 
notify the British Atlantic fleet and return home. 

Exuberance left the Cabinet—shame and humiliation followed. 
Seward shut himself in his room, barred the door against inter¬ 
ruption and began his apology. (Lothrop, p. 330). 

“The United States had been foremost in resisting right of 
search.” She had made it a cause of war in 1812. She demand¬ 
ed at the cannon’s mouth “the right of friendly ships to pass 
unquestioned on the highway of nations—the right of a neutral 
flag to protect everything not contraband of war.” 

England remembered this and the British Lion was roused 
and America had to act quickly. Southern men were back of 
the demand in 1812 and no roar of the British Lion had any 
effect then because they stood for what was right. 

What was Seward’s answer when he came out of retirement? 

“The four persons now held in military custody at Port 
Warren will be cheerfully liberated. Your lordship will 
indicate a time for receiving them.” 

What a humiliation that must have been to the Cabinet! 

Now after Lincoln, without the consent of Cabinet or Con- 
greas—just on his own responsibility—had violated the Constitu¬ 
tion by so many illegal acts, he felt it wise to call Congress to 
meet in order to have these illegal acts legalized. He admitted 
every one of these acts and admitted that they were illegal. 
However, Congress refused to legalize crime. 

The Resolution read thus: 

“Be i't resolved by the Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives of the United States in Congress assembled: 

“THAT all the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and 
orders herein before mentioned be and the same are ap¬ 
proved, and declared to be in all respects legal and valid to 
the same, and with the same effect as if they had been issued 


24 


and done under the previous and express authority and di¬ 
rection of the Congress of the United States.” 

The four secret expeditions to break the armistices must have 
been included in the expression, ‘‘extraordinary acts,” as they 
are not otherwise hinted at. 

President Lincoln and his Cabinet tried and tried again to 
get the Joint Resolution passed, but Congress refused, and it has 
not been passed to this day. 

The South is still bearing the onus of the Andersonville hor¬ 
rors—but as the Hon. George Christian has said: “Mr. Lincoln 
was directly responsible for all the sufferings and deaths of pris¬ 
oners on both sides during the war.” The orders given by the 
Confederate government was that the prisoners were to have 
the same rations in the same quantity and of the same quality 
as the men of the Confederacy. The hospitals were to be placed 
in every respect upon the same footing as those of the Confed¬ 
eracy. 

When the stockade at Andersonville, built for 10,000 men, 
was overcrowded with 30,000 because of the refusal on the part 
of Northern authority to exchange the prisoners, disease broke 
out, and the South having no medicine, for the Federal govern¬ 
ment had made medicine contraband of war, the first time in 
civilized warfare, what could be expected but horrible suffering 
and death? 

Special messengers were sent to Mr. Lincoln to inteicede in 
behalf of these poor dying men. He refused to see the messen¬ 
gers or to hear their messages. Some of the prisoneis themselves 
w r ere sent to intercede but their request was not heard. Finally 
the Northern authorities urged that they send through the line3 
these men ten to fifteen thousand at a time, without exchange, 
and this was refused. As a last resort some of the prisoners were 
marched to the Florida line and left there. The surrender came 
fortunately just at this time. 

Charles A. Dana, Secretary of War*—no friend to the South, 
for he was responsible for allowing the shackles to be put on 
President Davis—said: 

“The evidence must be taken as conclusive. It proves 
that it was not the Confederate authorities who insisted on 
keeping our prisoners in distress, want and disease, but the 
Commander-in-Chief of our own Army. '* 


25 



Who was this Commander-in-Chief? Abraham Lincoln, Pres¬ 
ident of the United States. 

LINCOLN WAS NOT RELIGIOUS 

Lincoln was not a religions man—sav what you will. When 
he became a candidate for the Illinois Legislature, lie was ac¬ 
cused of being an infidel, and he never denied it. He was ac¬ 
cused of saying Jesus was not the Son of God, and lie never de¬ 
nied it. (Herndon’s letter to Lamon). 

Lamon says he went further than any person he ever knew 
in regard to religious things—lie shocked him. (Lamon \s “Life 
of Lincoln”). 

Herndon 5-aid: 

“Lincoln was a deep-grounded infidel.” 

Lamon said: 

“He goes to church but he goes to mimic and mock.” 
Dennis Hanks, Lincoln’s first cousin, said: 

“Abe would make fun of the preacher. He would re¬ 
produce the sermon with a nasal twang, roll his eyes and 
make droll faces to the delight of the wild fellows collected.” 

Dennis Hanks says: 

«v 

“Abe never did sing sacred songs. He sang songs of a 
very questionable character.” 

Xicolay, Lincoln’s private secretary, said: 

“Mr. Lincoln did not to my knowledge in any way change 
his religious views, opinions or beliefs from the time lie left 
Springfield to the da} 7 of his death.” 

Lamon said: 

“He never joined any church. He did not believe the 
Bible was inspired. 

“He denied that Jesus was the Son of God. Overwhelm¬ 
ing testimony out of many mouths, and none stronger than 
out of his own, place these facts beyond controversy.” 

It is said that all of his state papers and his Emancipation 
Proclamation have religious utterances in them. 

If so, others for effect had the sacred words added. 

“On January 1, 1863, the second writing of the Emanci¬ 
pation Proclamation was read. The members of the Cabi¬ 
net noticed that the name of God was not mentioned in it, 
and reminded the President that such an important docu¬ 
ment should recognize the name of the Deity. Lincoln said 
he had overlooked that fact and asked the Cabinet to assist 


26 





% 


liiin in preparing a paragraph recognizing God. Chief 
•Justice Chase prepared it: 

“ ‘I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and 
the gracious favor of Almighty God.’ 

“It was accepted without a change.” 

It was stated Lincoln was on his knees for hours before the 
battle of Gettysburg. 

Barnes in his “ Popular History,” says Mr. Lincoln was 
making vows. He made a rash vow that if General Lee was 
driven out of Maryland, he would free the slaves—a vow is cpiite 
different from a prayer. 

How can ministers and lecturers and religious teachers hold 
Lincoln as an example for Christian children to emulate? The 
danger is great and mothers are realizing it. They find their 
children holding him up as an example in denying the Divinity 
of our Lord, and the needlessness of uniting with any church. 

LINCOLN NOT A PROHIBITIONIST 

Lincoln is held up as a great prohibitionist. lie was not. 
While never a drunkard himself, he did not hesitate to make 
others drunk. 

On March 6th, 1833, Abraham Lincoln had a Saloon License 
issued under the name of Berry cl' Lincoln. This license was 
certified to by Charles E. Apel, County Clerk of Sangamon 
County, Illinois, April 25, 1908. A copy of this license will be 
furnished to any who wish it, also a picture of the saloon. 

They were allowed to sell whiskey, rum, wine, Holland (jin, 
apple, peach and French brandy. 

The Bond is now in existence signed by Abraham Lincoln. 

Some will argue that it was quite common for taverns and inns 
to have saloons connected with them in Lincoln’s time. So it 
was but the saloon keeper was never held up as a prohibiitionist. 

Then on December 19, 1840, an act was presented to the Illi¬ 
nois House of Representatives (Abraham Lincoln being a mem¬ 
ber of the Legislature at that time) to prohibit the sale of in¬ 
toxicating* liquors and to have a fine of $1,000 placed upon the 
sale of any vinous or spiritous liquors after the passing of the 

act. 

Abraham Lincoln moved to lay the bill on the table, and tais 
was done. 


27 


* 


Authority: Journal of House of Representatives of Illinois 
in New York Library, p. 135. 

“When President he signed the liquor revenue bill and 
turned the saloons loose on the country.” 

Lamon in speaking on this subject, said: 

“The people all drank and Abe was for doing what Ihe 
people diu." 

Abraham Lincoln was a remarkable man in that he fooled 
so many people most of the time—but he was neither good nor 
great. 

Av. irreligious and vulgar man cannot be called good. A man 
who says one thing and does another cannot be called great. 

lie was noi an honest man. I do not mean to say that he 
would steal for there cannot be found in his life anything to 
indicate the slightest dishonesty along this line, although he did 
wink at it in others. He died with empty coffers. Had he been 
dishonest he could have died rich. It is true l\e was called “Hon¬ 
est Abe,” but he was not honest in his speech, and he was not 
honest in his politics. 

His Republican Party that felt the necessity of exalting him 
since his death could not have worshipped him before he died, 
or they would not have allowed his widow to plead for support 
as her lately discovered letters show. ( 1 1 ary Lincoln’s Letters, 
dated December 26, 1865 and January 13, 1866, nor have al¬ 
lowed her to accept charity from Cyrus Field as testified by 
J. P. Morgan. Barron’s, Dec. 25, 1922, p. 11). 

New Haven Register (Copied in New York World, Septem¬ 
ber 15, 1864: 

“I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war 
policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see 
my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I 
saw the corruption of the present administration—and so 
long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so 
long will war continue. And for what? For the preserva¬ 
tion of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the 
sake of politicians and government contractors . 9 7 

Horace Greeley said: 

“I cannot trust 4 honest old Abe.’ He is too smart for 
me. ’ ’ 

Yes, Lincoln was smart—that term fits him. He saw Seward 
was too smart and would give trouble out of the Cabinet, so he 
made him Secretary of State—better to have him in than out. 


28 




He saw Chase was aspiring to be President, so he named him 
Chief Justice to get rid of him. Chase had been called “the 
irritating fly in the ointment ” at the White House. Lincoln 
was smart enough to know it was his daughter, Mrs. Kate Chase 
Sprague, who was managing her father’s Presidential aspira¬ 
tions. So he anticipated her scheyies and without her knowledge 
had her father made Chief Justice. When Sumner told her of 
her father’s appointment as Chief Justice she replied: “Are 
you, too, Mr. Sumner, in this business of shelving papa?” 
(“Life of Salmon P. Chase ,” p. 630). Cameron was giving 
trouble so he made him Minister to Russia. 

Lamon said: 

“Mr. Lincoln did not possess a single quality for his of¬ 
fice as President. People said he was good and honest and 
well meaning, but never pretended that he was great.’ 

George Lunt said: 

“The nomination of Mr. Lincoln was purely accidental. 
Few had ever heard of him before his nomination.’ 

The New York Times said: 

“His election was more by shouts and applause which 
dominated than from any direct labors of any of the dele¬ 
gates. ’ ’ 

Morse, Vol. 1, p. 178: 

“He was nominated purely as a sectional candidate of a 
sectional party.” 

Again, p. 169, Lamon, p. 449: 

“He was only nominated by means of a corrupt bargain 
entered into by Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania and Caleb 
Smith, of Indiana, provided Lincoln would pledge them 
Cabinet positions. These pledges Lincoln fulfilled and thus 
made himself a party to corrupt bargains.” 

Had Lincoln not been assassinated would he have made better 
terms during the Reconstruction Period ? 

It was thought so at first and Jefferson Davis, General Howell 
Cobb and others expressed their opinion that he would, but the 
history of the man, not known then, has brought the South to 
the conclusion that he would not have done even what Andrew 

Johnson tried to do. 


29 


SHOULD LOYAL SOUTHERNERS ADORE ABRAHAM 

LINCOLN? 


Now this man Abraham Lincoln was responsible for a war 
that cost the South more than 1,000,000 lives, and more than 
$8,000,000,000 worth of property. 

The result of the war caused the South to pass through the 
‘‘Valley of Humiliation” that was far worse than suffering from 
bullets and shell. 

Can any loyal Southerner be expected to admire and glorify 
such a man ? 

Can any loyal Southern man and woman be willing to have 
their children taught from textbooks that glorify him? 

No, I think the time has fully come when there should be 
drawn a line between the loyal and disloyal in the South. 

A time when all disloyal to the South, whether Northern born 
or Southern born, shall be ruled from Boards of Education, and 
members of textbooks committees. 

A time has come when every teacher, whether Northern born 
or Southern born, disloyal to the South shall be ruled out of 
Southern colleges and schools. 

This Lincoln cult is entering and has already entered into 
books on our library tables—on our library shelves, and even 
in books recommended by our U. I). C.; in encyclopedias and 
reference books of all kind—yes, even on the moving picture 
screen, for Drink water’s “Abraham Lincoln ” is one of the great¬ 
est historical falsehoods of today and all so subtle that we are 
unconscious of its pernicious effect. Something must be done 
and done quickly. 

Lincoln’s biographers pose him as a highly educated literary 
personage, and the Gettysburg speech which Seward wrote after¬ 
wards is put into every collection of great speeches and attrib¬ 
uted to Lincoln, not Seward. 

Lincoln deserved credit for the education he received in the 
wav he received it—but do not be deceived by attributing to him 
things lie never wrote. Mr. Judd and other friends revised all 
of his speeches before they appeared in print. (See New York 
Express, Feb. 20, 1861, p. 33). 

What did the press say of Abraham Lincoln before his death? 
Did they glorify him then? 


30 


New York Herald, May 22, I860, Editorial: 

“The candidate for President, Abraham Lincoln, is an 
uneducated man—a vulgar village politician without any 
experience worth mentioning in the practical duties of 
statesmanship, and only noted for some very unpopular 
votes which he gave while a member of Congress. * 

New York Express, February, 1861: 

“The tone of levity and frivolity which characterizes the 
speeches of Mr. Lincoln causes the hearts of our citizens to 
sink within them. They perceive already that lie is not 
the man for the crisis, and begin to despond of any extri¬ 
cation from impending difficulties..” 


The Philadelphia Argus: 

“The humiliating spectacle is thus presented of the 
President-elect indulging in the merest clap-trap of the pol¬ 
itician thanking the people for voting for him, flattering 
their political pride and appealing to their sectional ani¬ 
mosities. 99 


New York Tribune, June 4, 1863: 

Cooper Union Meeting —Peace and Reunion. 

Alfred R. Wooten, Attorney-General, Deleware: 

“The Administration is an insult 'to the flag, and a traitor 
to their God—(Cheers). Russia neved dared exercise the 
privileges which Mr. Lincoln did, without reading a news¬ 
paper to see what people thought. A hound might hunt 
Mr. Lincoln, and never find him by an honest scent.’ 

New York Tribune , August 22, 1862: 


Wendell Phillips : 

“The Union belongs to me as much as to Abraham Lin¬ 
coln. What right has he or any official—our servants—to 
claim that I shall cease criticising his mistakes, when they 
are dragging the Union to ruint I find grave faults vdth 
Abraham Lincoln.” 

What the press said of him as the time drew near for re- 
election : 

New York World , April 15, 1864: 

Editorial —A yearning for the Democratic Party. 

“This halting imbecility of Mr. Lincoln heightens the 
contrast between the unhesitating boldness of the Demo¬ 
cratic party. If we had a positive, intrepid Douglas, in¬ 
stead of a'feeble, vacillating Lincoln at the head of the 
o-overnment, how different would have been the fortunes 
of the country. The people are turning their eyes to the 
Democratic party for relief. 


31 


New York World, April 13, 1864: 

Editorial —Extracts from Republican sources. 

“Mr. Lincoln is wholly unqualified for liis position, the 
personal presence, the dignity nor the knowledge demanded 
in the magistrate of a great people. No branch of the 
Administration has been well and efficiently administered 
under him. His soul seems to be made of leather and inca¬ 
pable of any grand or noble emotion. YAu leave his pres¬ 
ence with your enthusiasm dampened, your better feelings 
crushed, and your hopes cast to the winds. Even wisdom 
from him seems but folly.” (Dr. Bronson). 

New YArk World, June 2, 1864. 

Editorial: 

“That there is in the Republican party a widely diffused 
impression of the feebleness, faithlessness and incapacity 
of Mr. Lincoln’s administration is notorious.” 

New York Ilerald, June 2, 1864. 

Editorial: 

“Anything for a change in this imbecile and torpid ad¬ 
ministration. Let us have a shaking up of its dry bones— 
anything for a change.” 

New YArk World, June 4, 1864. 

Editorial: The Baltimore Convention. 

“The result of the Baltimore Convention is like a game 
of cards when the devil is one of the players. Mr. Lincoln 
will certainly be nominated and probably by acclamation 
without the formality of a ballot. It is like a trial before a 
jury that has been skillfully packed, by the counsel of one 
party. Mr. Lincoln tried to reinstate himself in the good 
graces of his party by the Emancipation Proclamation but 
he is now painfully conscious that the radicals distrust and 
despise him.” 

New YArk World, June 9, 1864. 

Editorial: Lincoln and Johnson. 

“The age of rail splitters and tailors, of buffoons, boors 
and fanatics has succeeded. Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson 
are both men of mediocre talent, neglected education, nar¬ 
row views, deficient information and of coarse, vulgar man¬ 
ners. A statesman is supposed to be a man of some depth 
of thought and extent of knowledge. Has this country with 
so proud a record been reduced to such intellectual poverty 
as to be forced to present two such names as Abraham Lin¬ 
coln and Andrew Johnson for the highest stations in this 
most trying crisis of its history ? It is a cruel mockery and 


32 


bitter humiliation. Such nominations at this juncture are 
an insult to the common sense of the people/ ’ 

New York Express. 

Copied bv Baltimore Sun, February 20, 1861: 

“The mortification of the Republican party is great. They 
begin when it is too late to realize the truth of the allega¬ 
tions made by the Union men of Illinois as to the incom¬ 
petency of Lincoln for the presidency. His supporters ap¬ 
pealed to his published speeches as a proof of his ability. 
It now appears, as it was suspected then, that those speeches 
were carefully prepared by Mr. Judd, and other friends of 
Lincoln, and revised, polished and rewritten to such a de¬ 
gree that those who heard him on the stump could not rec¬ 
ognize them when they appeared in print. 

“This was part of the game of deception played by his 
party to force such a man upon the country for its chief 
magistrate. 

“His chief characteristics were an immense ‘gift of gab,* 
and an ability to joke, and with a wonderful command of 
language, unaccompanied with corresponding ideas. Let 
the American people prepare for a hurricane. 

Montgomery (Mo.) Star, W. H. Cunningham, 

Reporter for Gettysburg Speech: 

“It was my privilege to be present at the dedication of the 
Soldiers’ National Cemetery, at Gettysburg, the afternoon 
of November 19, 1863, and to hear the now famous speech 
of Abraham Lincoln on that occasion. I can bear witness 
to the fact that this address pronounced by Edward Everett 
to be ‘unequalled in the annals of oratory,’ fell upon unap¬ 
preciative ears, was entirely unnoticed and wholly disap¬ 
pointing to a majority of the hearers. It was my good for¬ 
tune as a newspaper correspondent to sit directly beside 
Mr. Lincoln. 

“When he finished reading the manuscript he thrust it 
back into his overcoat pocket and sat down—not a word, not 
a cheer, not a shout. The people looked at each other as if 
to say, ‘Is that all?’ I am well aware accounts have differed 
but an eye witness and hearer in my position beside the 
speaker—hence the foregoing account may be relied upon.’ 

Lamon, in his “Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, said: 

“After the speech, Lincoln turned to me and said, ’La¬ 
mon, that speech was like a wet blanket on the audience. I 
am distressed about it.’ ” 

“Seward asked Everett what he thought of the speech. Mr. 
Everett replied, ‘It was not what I expected. I am disap¬ 
pointed. What do you think of it, Mr. Sew aid: Mi. 
Seward replied, ‘It is a failure.’ 

33 


“I state it as an absolute fact that the Gettysburg speech 
was not regarded as a speech of any extraordinary merit 
until after Lincoln’s death.” 

Again: 

“The special phrase that has been most deeply ingrained 
and assimilated into the heart and speech of the world, and 
now generally attributed to Lincoln in the Gettysburg 
speech—‘government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people’—does not belong to Lincoln, but to Daniel 
Webster. In 1830 he uttered it in his memorable reply to 
Hayne.” Bradley, p. 227, par. 5). 

New York Herald, June 13, 1864. 

Editorial s 

“Though Mr. Lincoln is President of the United States 
he has been a bad one—a totally incapable one—a president 
who has directed the operation of every department of the 
government, and prolonged the war to the infinite loss of 
the country in men and money. ” 

New York World, October 21, 1864. 

Editorial: 

“Mr. Lincoln’s attempt to buy General McClellan is one 
of the most scandalous and damaging disclosures ever made 
against .a public man. This disclosure was made by Ex- 
Postmaster General Blair in his speech at the Cooper Insti¬ 
tute. It commanded universal credence as coming from a 
source so well informed as a late member of the Cabinet, 
who must have been cognizant of the transaction and whose 
personal honor and reputation was above question.” 

New York World, October 26, 1864. 

“A great revelation. 

“Private confessions of a high Republican official. 

“Dismal future for the nation. 

“How the war is to be prosecuted if Lincoln is re-elected. 
Southerners to be exterminated. The North to become 
bankrupt, and half the men to be killed off. 

“The Union must be restored. 

“A startling exposure to show Mr. Lincoln a despicable 
tyrant.” 

New York Churchman, August 5, 1899. 

“At the breaking out of our late civil war there was in 
the Western part of Connecticut, and extending into ad¬ 
joining counties of New York an ugly feeling of discon¬ 
tent against what seemed to the policy of Mr. Lincoln to¬ 
wards the rebelling states. ’ ’ 

Ida Tarbell’s (t hife of Lincoln”: 


34 


■'in the winter of 1862-’63 many and many a man desert¬ 
ed 'the army. They refused to fight. Mr. Lincoln knew that 
hundreds of soldiers were being urged by parents and 
friends to desert. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana 
and Illinois reserved their vote. The people were weary of 
war, weary of so much waste of life and money. Open dis¬ 
satisfaction was shown in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin 
which broke out in violence over the draft for more mSn.” 

LINCOLN AFTER HIS ASSASSINATION 

Studying carefully and honestly all history written of him 
before his death—history given by friends, relatives, and the 
press—nothing can be found to justify the fulsome praise we 
find after his death. 

Judd Stewart, Address, North Plainfield, N. J., February 10, 
1917: 

“Here in this new world country with no pride of an¬ 
cestry arose the greatest man since the meek and lowly Naz- 
arene; a man whose life had a greater influence on the 
human race than any teacher, thinker or toiler since the 
beginning of the Christian Era.” 

P. D. Ross, an Englishman, in “Harper’s Weekly,” November 
7, 1908, said: 

“Abraham Lincoln is the greatest man that the world 
has ever possessed.” 

Don Piatt, after Lincoln’s martyrdom, says: 

“The greatest figure looming up in our history.” 

Stanton, before his death, in a letter to President Buchanan, 
expressed his contempt for Lincoln. He also advised the revolu¬ 
tionary overthrow of the Lincoln government in order that Mc¬ 
Clellan be made military dictator. 

After his assassination, standing over Lincoln’s dead body, he 
said, “Now he belongs to the ages,” and from thenceforth he 
began to eulogize him. 

John Hay, Secretary of State, said (after Lincoln’s death) : 

“Abraham Lincoln, First President of the Republican 
party, the greatest, wisest, godliest man that has appeared 
on earth since Christ.” 

J. G. Holland: 

“Lincoln unequalled since Washington in service to the 
Nation.” 

J. G. Holland waited until after Lincoln died to sa} r : 

“Mr. Lincoln will always be remembered as eminently a 


35 


Christian President. Conscience, not popular applause, not 
love of power, was 'the ruling motive of Lincoln’s life. No 
stimulant ever entered his month, no profanity ever came 
from his lips.” 

J. G. Holland : 

“Abraham Lincoln was the first of all men who have 
walked the earth since the Nazarene. ” 

% 

William M. Davidson :. 

“Abraham Lincoln was the greatest statesman of the 
Nineteenth Century. ’ ’ 

J. B. Wade: 

“History will show Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest 
man that ever lived.” 

It is queer that a Southern born man and a Confederate sol¬ 
dier should be Lincoln’s greatest glorifier. Henry Watterson, 
undoubtedly posted by James Breckenridge Speed, Lincoln’s 
friend, who asked him to present the statue of Lincoln to Ken¬ 
tucky, said among other things: 

“Yon lowly cabin which is to be dedicated on the mor- 
row may well be likened to the Manger of Bethlehem, the 
boy that went thence to a God-like destiny, to the Son of 
God, the Father Almighty of Him and us all. Whence his 
prompting except from God? His tragic death may be 
likened also to that other martyr whom Lincoln so closelv 
resembled. 

“There are utterances of his which read like rescripts 
from the Sermon on the Mount. Reviled as Him of Galilee, 
slain, even as Him of Galilee, yet as gentle and as unoffend¬ 
ing, a man who died for men.” 

J. M. Merrill, in Detroit Free Press, says : 

“Abraham Lincoln is so far above every other man in 
human history that compare him to others seems sacrilege. 

“No where on the earth is there a historic character to 
compare to our sainted martyr, Abraham Lincoln.” 

Albert Bushnell Hart: 

“Abraham Lincoln was the greatest man of the Civil 
War Period. ’ ’ 

Sunday School Times: 

“Abraham Lincoln is the Christian exemplar for children 
today. ’ ’ 

It will not be safe for ministers of the gospel, editors of 
Christian newspapers, Sunday School teachers, public speakers 
or true historians to quote from those who deified Lincoln after 
martyrdom. Parents testify that they are obliged to keep their 


36 


children from Sunday School and church on the nearest Sunday 
lo Lincoln’s birthday so dreadful is this deification, making such 
a man as great as God Himself. 

Walter McElreath, after reading Rothschild’s “ Lincoln: 
Master of Men”: 


“Mr. Lincoln was not an ordinary man we all agree, but 
greatness is a relative term and considering the opportuni¬ 
ties and responsibilities and station which Mr. Lincoln oc¬ 
cupied he must be judged by the standards of greatness by 
which other great men are judged. Judging him by these 
standards I cannot see how Mr. Lincoln was at all a great 
man or how he can be said to possess even the second order 
of greatness. 

“How can a man be considered great when the men asso¬ 
ciated with him four years in such an enterprise as civil 
war were not impressed with his greatness until the enter¬ 
prise was over, is more than I can understand. 

“McClellan had known him years before the war and was 
not impressed with his greatness. Chase, Seward and Stan¬ 
ton never thought him a great man until after his death. 
It is strange that such men living close to him for four 
years could not recognize in him some signs of greatness 
while he lived. I cannot see anything great in his choice 
of men or generals. His ministers were chosen to remove 
them from opposition to the administration. He held the 
power to depose—his mastery over men came from his 
power to exercise unlimited authority.” 

Seward testified that this power was greater than that of 
Queen Victoria. 


The St. Louis Globe Democrat ” March 6, 1898: 

“Where now is the man so rash as to even warmly criti¬ 
cize Abraham Lincoln?” 

This certainly is true for one adverse comment subjects one 
to the accusation either of prejudice or injustice, and brings 
forth a storm of abuse upon the one brave enough to dare it. 


“In seeking the truth about him. it would be most unjust 
to take only the testimony of his enemies, and it would be 
equally as unjust to take only the testimony of his glori- 
fiers. Lincoln was a man as other men with weak points and 
strong points of character, and the fairest testimony ought 
to come from those who knew him best, loved him well, hon¬ 
ored him and yet were friendly enough, truthful enough and 
just enough to see and acknowledge his faults.” 

In the Preface to “The True Story of a Great Life ” written 


37 


by Herndon and Weik after the first “Life of Lincoln ■/’ by 
Herndon had been destroyed, is found this: 

“With a view of throwing light on some attributes of Mr. 
Lincoln’s character hitherto obscure these volumes are given 
to the world. The whole truth concerning Mr. Lincoln 
should be known. The truth will at last come out, and no 
man need hope to evade it. Some persons will doubtless ob¬ 
ject to the narrative of certain facts, but these facts are 
indispensable to a full knowledge of Mr. Lincoln. We must 
have all the facts about him. We must be prepared to take 
Mr. Lincoln as he was. Mr. Lincoln was my warm and per¬ 
sonal friend. My purpose to tell the truth about him need 
occasion no apprehension. God’s naked truth cannot in¬ 
jure his fame.” 


CONTRARY OPINIONS 


Lamon and Herndon both testified that Mr. Lincoln would 
have resented such adulation. He was a plain man and ex¬ 
pected plain language in praising him and only the truth to be 
recorded. 


Before his death it was said: 


1 . 

2 . 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6 . 

7. 

8 . 
9. 

10 . 

11 . 

12 . 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20 . 


”He was the jolliest man. He sang vulgar songs.” 

“He was known for his coarse and vulgar jokes.” 

“He was a perfect boor. 

“As a lawyer, he was a cunning clown.” 

“He was a man of indomitable will.” 

* ‘ He was a perfect tyrant. ’ ’ 

‘ ‘ He soon forgot his friends. ’ ’ 

“His duplicity brought on the war.” 

“He only retailed the wit of other men.” 

“He was the most cunning man in the world.” 

“He had no religion at all.” 

“He was full of mirth.” 

“He drank with the crowd.” 

“He hated the slave.” 

“He was never tactful.” “He knew not the word gratit¬ 
ude." He never remembered a favor.” 

“He was very ambitious.” “His sole ambition was to gain 
office. ” 

“He was a man without personal attachments.” ”H.e 

was incapable of feeling pity for the suffering.” 

“He had not the instincts of a gentleman.” 

“lie was very awkward in ladies’ presence.” 

“His vulgar stories are too indecent to print.” 


38 


WHAT WAS SAID AFTER IILS DEATH? 

1. “He was the saddest man in the world.” 

2. “He was remarkable for his pure mindedness.” 

3. “He was a gentleman by instinct.” 

4. “At the bar he was a genius.’’ 

5. “He was a man without a will.” 

6. “He was the softest hearted man in the world.” 

7. “He never forgot a kindness.” 

8. “He was a man without duplicity.” 

9. “He was the wittiest of men.” 

10. “He had not a particle of cunning.” 

11. “He was the godliest man since the Nazarene.” 

12. “He rarely smiled.” 

13. “He never touched liquor.” 

14. “He freed the slave.” 

15. “He was exceedingly tactful.” 

16. “He had not a particle of ambition.” 

17. “He was very literary.” 

18. “He was a man of God and found often on his knees.’'* 

19. “He was a man after God’s own pattern.” 

20. “He never acquired a vice, and never had an impure 

thought.” 

Books portraying the life of Lincoln, written by many of his 
glorifiers since his death, cannot be relied upon for truthfulness. 
Much in these volumes is given from the “inner consciousness’ 
of the writers, and not founded on truth. 

If one gives a careful examination of the printed conversa¬ 
tions with friends or foes, the private and public letters to 
friends, relatives and politicians, public speeches, political doc¬ 
uments and reports, and all that is recorded of Mr. Lincoln in 
State or Congressional Records while living, there will not 
be found anything to warrant those beautiful sentiments and 
humane and religious expressions which abound in these late 
works. Lincoln did not talk in language like that. 

That exquisite little story of Lincoln’s writing the will for a 
dying Confederate soldier—is by the confession of the author— 
a story taken from her “inner consciousness.” Yet it is incor¬ 
porated in the readers for children and widely used in our 
Southern schools. 

That incident recorded of Lincoln’s walking back several miles 
to place some fallen birds back into their nests does not tally 
with the lack of humaneness to animals as related by Lainon and 
Herndon in anecdotes of Lincoln. 


39 


Lincoln’s tenderness to his little Tad is an undisputed point— 
found in early and late writings—but other instances of humane¬ 
ness and tenderness are far from being substantiated. 

‘'The Life of Lincoln by John Hay and Nicolay, cannot be 
relied on as Lamon’s and Herndon’s for by Hay’s own con¬ 
fession of “telling the truth about everything and everybody 
like two everlasting angels with one exception—Lincoln—we are 
Lincoln men through and through.” New York Times , October 
24, 1915). 

It is perfectly natural for the Rev. John Wesley Hill, Chan¬ 
cellor of the Lincoln Memorial University, to glorify Abraham 
Lincoln in his “Lincoln—Man of God.” 

The success of his University, like the success of the Republi¬ 
can Party, depended upon it, but the very fact that this was nec¬ 
essary, and that the writer of this and other like books had to go 
out of their way to prove that Lincoln was a Christian is the 
strongest proof of the doubt of these statements. 

Who ever thought of writing a book to prove George Wash¬ 
ington, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson 
were Christians ? 

Dr. Hill was born in 1863, and could not have known Lin¬ 
coln personally as Lamon and Herndon did, and their state¬ 
ments on this subject are most explicit. Not a minister in Spring- 
field would vote for Lincoln, and not a relative has ever testified 
to his religious faith. Even his stepmother, a very religious 
woman who loved him devotedly, denied the statement that 
“Abe shed penitential tears over his Bible.” 

The testimony of his wife should be the strongest of all testi¬ 
monies for she knew him best. She said, “Mr. Lincoln had 
no faith, no hope. ” 

How can any true estimate be reached about a man whose 
friends so grossly falsify to make him appear great? 

After Lincoln’s death, Lamon savs: 

“The ceremony of Mr. Lincoln’s apothesis was planned 
and executed after his death by men who were unfriendlv to 
him while he lived. Men who had exhausted the resources 
of their skill and ingenuity in venomous detractions of the 
living Lincoln were the first after his death, to undertake 
the task of guarding his memory not as a human being, but 
as a god.” (Lamon’s “Life of Lincoln”). 

Lamon again says: 

CD 4 7 


40 


“There was fierce rivalry who should canonize Mr. Lin¬ 
coln in the most solemn words; who should compare him to 
the most sacred character in all history. He was prophet, 
priest, and king’, he was Washington, he was Moses, he was 
likened to Christ the Redeemer, he was likened unto God. 
ATter that came the ceremony of apotheosis. And this was 
the work of men who spoke of the living Lincoln except 
with jeers and contempt. After his death it became a po¬ 
litical necessity to pose him as ‘the greatest, wisest, godliest 
man that ever lived.’ ” 

Why was it necessary to put a censorship of forty-five years 
upon the press? Authority: Dr. W. T. Knappe, whose father’s 
paper was one of the papers censored. 

Lamon: 

“Those who scorned and reviled him while living were 
Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase; Secretary of 
War, Edwin Stanton; Vice-President, Hannibal Hamlin; 
Secretary of State, Wm, Seward, Fremont; Senators Sum¬ 
ner, Trumbull, Ben Wade, Henry Wilson, Thaddeus Stevens, 
Henry Ward Beecher, Wendell Phillips, Winter Davis, Hor¬ 
ace Greeley, Zack Chandler of Michigan, and a host of oth¬ 
ers. ” 

General Don Piatt travelled with Lincoln when he was making 
his campaign speeches, hence knew him intimately. 

General Don Piatt says: 

“When a leader dies all good men go to lying about him. 
From the moment that covers his remains to the last echo 
of the rural press, in speeches, in sermons, eulogies, remi¬ 
niscences, we hear nothing but pious lies.” 

General Piatt continues: 

“Abraham Lincoln has almost disappeared from human 
knowledge. I hear of him, I read of him in eulogies and 
biographies but I fail to recognize the man I knew in life. ? ’ 

The villification of Jefferson Davis followed closely the assas¬ 
sination of Abraham Lincoln. Was it just? Is the South ready 
to stand for this? 

THE VILLIFICATION OF JEFFERSON DAVIS SEEM¬ 
ED NECESSARY TO MAKE THE GLORIFICATION OF 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN MORE EFFECTIVE. 

Authority: 

Harper’s Weekly, June, 1865: 

“The murder of President Lincoln furnished the final 
proof of the ghastly spirit of the rebellion. Davis inspired 
the murder of Lincoln.” 


41 


Cheney's “History of the Civil War p. 359: 

“Poor Jeff Davis began to feel like a wandering Jew—a 
price was put on his head. He dared rest nowhere for fear 
of meeting the fate of a traitor—afraid to risk an interview 
with Sherman and not daring to wait for Johnson’s sur¬ 
render, he fled to Charlotte.” 

i 

Xew York Tribune, 1861: 

“The hanging of traitors is sure to begin before the 
month is over. The nations of Europe may rest assured that 
Jeff Davis will be swinging from the battlements of Wash¬ 
ington at least by the Fourth of July. We spit upon a 
later and longer deferred justice.” 

“The Story of a Great March,” Major George W. Nichols: 

“The failure of Jeff Davis has brought down on him the 
hatred and abuse of his own people. Were he here today 
nothing but execration would have been showered upon 
him.” 

Harper’s Weekly, June 17, 1865: 

“Davis is as guilty of Lincoln’s murder as Booth. Davis 
was conspicuous for every extreme of ferocity, inhumanity 
and malignity. He was responsible for untold and unim¬ 
aginable cruelties practiced on loyal citizens in the South.” 

Thaddeus Stevens, House of Congress, March 19, 1867: 

“While I would not be bloody-minded, yet if I had my 
way I would long ago have organized a military tribunal 
under military power and I would have put Jefferson Davis 
and all the members of the Cabinet on trial for the murders 
at Andersonville. Jefferson Davis murdered a thousand 
men, robbed a thousand widows and orphans, and burned 
down a thousand homes. ’ ’ 

IT arper ’s Weekly : 

“If it seems too incredible to be true that rebel leaders 
were guilty of Lincoln’s assassination, it must be remember¬ 
ed that Lincoln’s murder is no more atrocious than many 

«/ 

crimes of which Davis is notoriously guilty.” 

John Forney, Clerk of the Senate, Washington Chronicle: 

“The judiciary has ample evidence of Davis’ guilt of 
Lincoln’s murder, and of the murder of our soldiers in 
prison. ’ ’ 

Boutwell, of Massachusetts, introduced the following reso¬ 
lutions in Congress: 

“BE IT RESOLVED, That Jefferson Davis shall be 
tried on the charge of killing prisoners and murdering 
Abraham Lincoln.” 


42 


Sherman’s Memoirs: 

Orders to kill Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet on the spot were 
found on the person of Dahlgren in Richmond, Ya. 

“Jefferson Davis wrote a history of the struggle but it 
was full of prejudice.” 

Cheney ’s History, p. 53U: 

“Davis had in his possession $100,000 in gold belonging 
to the Confederate government.” 

“He was arrested near Macon disguised as a woman, with 
a shawl over his head and carrying a tin pail.” 

Was Jefferson Davis ever found guilty of any one of the 
many charges brought against him? 

Could Jefferson Davis be convicted of any one of the accusa¬ 
tions ever brought against him? 

“Jefferson Davis’ trial was never allowed—it was called 
several times but was postponed and postponed.” 

“His complicity with the assassination of Lincoln was 
hooted at even by his worst enemies.” 

“The secret records of the Confederate government 
proved beyond doubt he was in no way responsible for the 
cruel treatment of the Andersonville prisoners but their 
own government was responsible.” 

THE SOUTH MUST HAVE HER RIGHTFUL PLACE IN 

HISTORY 

George Shea in a letter to the New York Tribune, January 
24, 1876, said: 

“Mr. Horace Greeley received a letter from Mrs. Jefferson 
Davis June 22, 1865, imploring him to bring about a speedy 
trial of her husband upon the charge of assassination of 
President Lincoln, and the supposed cruelties at Anderson¬ 
ville Prison.” 

A public trial was prayed in order that the accusations might 
be publicly met, and her husband speedily vindicated. 

Charles A. Dana, Assistant Secretary of War, said in the 
New York Sun: 

“Mr. Greeley came to my residence and placed the 
letter in my hands, saying he personally did not believe .the 
charge of complicity in the assassination of Lincoln to be 
true, and that Mr. Davis could be released. 

“We called Mr. Greeley’s attention to the charge 
against Mr. Davis of cruel treatment of Union soldiers at 
Andersonville. 

43 


> ‘ t 


) > > 


“There was a general opinion among the gentlemen of 
the Republican party that Mr. Davis did not by thought or 
act participate in a conspiracy against Mr. Lincoln , and 
none were more emphatic than Mr. Thaddeus Stevens. 

“The only remaining charge, then, was the cruel treat¬ 
ment of the Andersonville prisoners, so at the suggestion of 
Mr. Greeley, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stevens, I went to Canada 
to examine the official archives of the Confederate States. 
From these documents, not meant for public eyes, but used 
in secret session, it was evident that Mr. Davis was not 
guilty of that charge. I reported this at once to Mr. 
Greeley. ” 

“On November 9, 1866, this notice, evidently written by 
him, appeared in The Tribune: 

“ ‘Eighteen months have nearly elapsed since Jefferson 
Davis was made a state prisoner. He has been publicly 
charged with conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln 
and $100,000 offered for his capture upon this charge. The 
capture was made, and the money paid, yet no attempt has 
been made by the government to procure an indictment on 
this charge. He has been charged with the virtual murder 
of Union soldiers while prisoners of war at Andersonville— 
but no official attempt has been made to indict him on this 
charge. 

* A great government may deal sternly with offenders, 
but not meanly; it cannot afford to seem unwilling to repair 
an obvious wrong.'’ 

Chas. A. Dana, New York Sun: 

“It was not Jefferson Davis or any subordinate or asso¬ 
ciate of his who should now be condemned for the horrors 
of Andersonville. We were responsible ourselves for the 
continued detertion of our captives in misery, starvation and 
sickness in the South.” 

Mr. Dana again says: 

‘ ‘ Of the charge of cruelty to our prisoners so often 
brought against Mr. Davis, and reiterated by Mr. Blaine in 
his speech in the United States Senate, we think Mr. Davis 
must be held altogether acquitted.” 

Through the courtesy of General John C. Breckenridge, Judge 
Shea was allowed to examine these records, especially those in 
regard to the care of and exchange of prisoners. This was taken 
from Judge Shea’s report: 

“These secret sessions show that Mr. Davis stronglv 
desired to do something which would secure better treatment 
of his men in Northern prisoners; and would place the war 
on the footing of wars waged by people in modern times, 

44 


* 

< 


< < c 


and divest it of a saving character. Mr. Davis never did 
yield to the continual demand for retaliation.” 

Russell’s Diary, p. 163; Correspondence to London Times: 

“The stories which have been so sediously spread of the 
barbarity and cruelty of the Confederates to all wounded 
Union-men ought to be set at rest by the printed statements 
of the eleven Union surgeons* just released, who have come 
back from Richmond, where they were sent after their cap- 
lure on the field of Bull Run, with the most distinct testi¬ 
mony that the Confederates treated their prisoners with 
humanity. Who are the miscreants who assert that the 
rebels burned the wounded in hospitals and bayoneted them 
as they lay helpless on the battlefield?” 

Jefferson Davis needs no other vindication than the fact that 


the United States authorities dared not bring him to tried as a 
trevitor or rebel but left his case in the hands of the Supreme 
Court on a technical point and there it remains today. (See 
Chief Justice Chase’s Report). 

Judge Joseph Ilolt paid large sums for witnesses to testify 
against President Davis. 

When the committee met to investigate the charges, the wit¬ 
nesses swore Conover had told them to swear to the falsehoods. 

He was accused of being arrested in woman ’s dress. 

Those who arrested him testify to the falsity of this charge. 
I have the affidavits of these Union men. The Federal authori¬ 
ties, upon receiving General Wilson’s telegram, ordered the 
woman’s clothes to be produced. They never were able to do it. 

Testimony of Jas. H. Parker, Elburnville, Pa., copied from 
Portland Argus (Maine) : 

‘ ‘I am no admirer of Jeff Davis—I am a Yankee, full of 
Yankee prejudices, but I think it is wicked to lie. I was 
with the party that captured Jeff Davis; I saw the whole 
transaction from the beginning. I now say that Jeff Davis 
did not have on at the time he was taken any such garment 
as is worn by women. He did have over his shoulders a 
water proof article of clothing, something like a haveloch. 
He was not in the least concealed. He wore a hat and did 
not carry a pail, bucket or kettle of any kind. I defy any 
person to find a single officer or soldier who was present 
at the capture to say that he was disguised in woman’s 
clothes, or that his wife acted in any way unlady-like or un¬ 
dignified on that occasion.” 


He was accused of using 


his office as Secretary of War under 


President Pierce to arm the South for war. 


45 


The official documents show thalt arms were taken from 

V 

arsenals in the South during his term of office to strengthen the 
western forts. The utter unpreparedness for war in the South¬ 
ern States proves that the South had no share of the arms that 
had previously been distributed. 

He was accused of taking large sums of gold belonging to the 
Confederacy from Richmond when that city fell. 

The Confederate treasurer testified to the disposition of all 
gold that belonged to the Confederate government and President 
Davis received none. When arrested, the President had no gold 
—only a small amount in Confederate bills upon his person or 
in his possession. 


Mrs. Cheney, in her history published in 1894, says: 

“Davis had to live in a box car as he passed through the 
South as no one cared enough for him to give him hospital¬ 
ity.” 

There was not a Southern home but would have esteemed it a 
great honor to have had him as a guest. 

The misrepresentations have been endless, but not one has 
touched the character of the man to blur it, and these calumnies 
like a boomerang have already reacted upon many preferring 
them. 

Ridpatli, the historian—one who had been one of John 
Brown’s ardent defenders—one who had never been able to see 
any good in Jefferson Davis,—after knowing him face to face, 
and after being welcomed as a guest at Beauvoir, said: “Jeffer¬ 
son Davis was the ideal embodiment of sweetness, goodness and 
light.” 

To me it has always been the greatest enigma that one who in 
his political life had rendered so many services of value to the 
United States government when Secretary of War under Presi¬ 
dent Pierce, should have been arrested, imprisoned, manacled, 
refused a trial, denied citizenship, forced to twenty years of 
martyrdom just because he stood by the Constitution of the 
United States as he had been taught to do at the Military Acad¬ 
emy under United States authority. 

Dr. Craven, his prison physician, gave this testimony: 

“The more I saw of him the more I was convinced of his 
sincere religious convictions. He impressed me more with 
the divine origin of God’s Word than any professor of 
Christianity I ever met." 


46 


Did his Christianity extend to forgiveness of his enemies? 
A Northern man, Ridpath, the historian, a guest at Beauvoir, 
testified 'that during his visit he never heard one word of bitter¬ 
ness toward any man. A quotation from a speech made to the 
Mississippi Legislature, March 10, 1884, will in itself suffice to 
answer this question. 

“Our people have accepted that decree; it therefore be¬ 
hooves them, as they may, to promote the general welfare 
of the Union, to show to the world that hereafter as here¬ 
tofore, the patriotism of our people is not measured by lines 
of latitude and longitude, but is as broad as the obligations 
they have assumed and embraces the whole of our ocean- 
bound domain. Let them leave to their children’s children 
the good example of never swerving from the path of duty, 
and preferring to return good for evil rather than to cherish 
the unmanly feeling of revenge.'’ 

Would one think from this that President Davis regretted the 
stand he took in '61? Never! Hear him again in that same 


speech: 

“It has been said that I should apply to the United States 
for a pardon; but repentance must precede the right of 
pardon, and I have not repented. Remembering, as I must, 
all which has been suffered, all which has been lost, disap¬ 
pointed hopes, and crushed aspirations, yet I deliberately 
say, if it were to do over again, 1 would do just as I did in 
1861. ” 


Would one say while stressing loyalty to the Union and to the 
National flag, President Davis meant that our children should 
be taught to forget the things for which their fathers fought? 


Not at all! Hear him again: 

“Never teach your children to admit that their fathers 
were wrong in their effort to maintain the sovereignty, free¬ 
dom and independence which was their inalienable birth- 
' right. I cannot believe that the causes for which our sacri¬ 
fices were made can ever be lost, but rather hope that those 


who now deny the justice of our asserted claims will learn 
from experience that the fathers budded wisely and the 
Constitution should be construed according to the commen¬ 
taries of those men who made it.” 

“Not one could touch his character morally—pure m 
thought, pure in speech, pure in life, and pure in religious 
professions. His mistakes had to be conceded were of the 
head— n ot the heart. Why is it that such a character as this 
is not oftener held up by ministers of the gospel, public 
speakers and teachers for the youth of our land to emu¬ 
late?” 


47 


As Dr. A. W. Littlefield of Needham, Mass., says, and says 
prophetically: 

“The South though defeated, really saved to America, 
and as we now see it, to the world all that was best in Ameri¬ 
can nationality. 

“The Constitution of the Confederacy furnishes ample 
proof that Lee’s shrine at Lexington, not Lincoln’s tomb 
will become the shrine of American patriotism, when once 
history is told correctly.” 

No, let us call a halt! 

Had the cause of the South in 1865 prevailed, history would 
have been truthfully written by unprejudiced historians. The 
Southern statesmen who had been true to the Constitution could 
better have steered the “Ship of State” than such men as Thad 
Stevens, Chas. Sumner, Fessenden, Turnbull, Andrew Johnson 
and others. 

It has taken the South many years to get off that “Rock of 
Offense,” the Reconstruction Period. While the South was com¬ 
batting the destructive forces at work during this time—homes 
were being destroyed, domestic relations were upset, property 
was being confiscated, politics was being corrupted, libert}^ of 
speech, and liberty of the press were being suppressed—the 
North was writing the history unmolested and we of the South 
have allowed 'this history written from the Northern viewpoint, 
with absolute ignorance of the South, to be taught in our schools 
all these years with an indifference that is truly appalling. 

We have allowed our leaders and our soldiers to be spoken of 
as “rebels.” Secession was not rebellion. 

We have allowed them to be called “traitors”—they could 
never convict one Southern man for the stand he took in 1861. 

We have allowed our cause to be spoken of as a “Lost Cause.” 
The Cause for which the Confederate soldier fought was not a 
'‘Lost Cause.” The late war was fought to maintain the very 
same principle —the non-interference with just rights. The 
trouble in 1865 was that the South failed to maintain this prin¬ 
ciple by force of arms. Being a Republic of Sovereign States 
and not a Nation she had the right to resent any interference 
with rights which had been guaranteed to her by the Constitu¬ 
tion. The South never has abandoned the principle for which 
she fought nor ever will. By overwhelming arms, 2,850,000 


48 


forced 600,000 to surrender, and in surrendering she was forced 
to submit to the terms of parole. 

We have allowed the war to be called a Civil War, because the 
North called it so when history was first written, and by allow¬ 
ing this we have acknowledged that we were a Nation, not Sov¬ 
ereign States, and therefore had no right to secede. No wonder 
that the doctrine of State Rights has been so misunderstood! 

It is with no thought of stirring up sectional strife, but rather 
with the desire of allaying sectional bitterness that I am anxious 
to have the truth known. If the North does not know the South’s 
side of history—and how can she know it if we do not tell it to 
her—the historians of the future will continue to misrepresent 
the South and the South will continue to resent the misrepre¬ 
sentations. 

We of the South are not advocating the adoption of any one 
text book, but we are advocating that those text books unjust to 
the South shall be ruled out of our schools, out of our homes, 
out of our public and private libraries, and that new encyclo¬ 
pedias and books of reference now being sold be carefully exam¬ 
ined before placed in homes or public or private libraries. 

The great underlying thought which animated the soldiers of 
the Confederacy was their profound regard for the principle of 
state self-government—they were not fighting to hold their 
slaves. The South was only fighting for the freedom of con¬ 
trolling her own domestic affairs. Only a very small minority of 
the men who fought in the. Southern army were slaveholders. 
Only 200,000 out of the 600,000 owned slaves. There were over 
a thousand more slaveholders in the Northern Army than m the 
Southern. Only a small per cent of the Confederate soldiers 
ever owned slaves. (John R. Deering, p. 381). 

General Lee, who had freed his slaves before the war, com¬ 
manded the Southern forces. 

General Grant, who owned slaves until the xiii. Amendment, 

commanded the Northern forces. 

George Lunt again says, p. 10 (Introduction) : 

“In presenting the causes which led to the war, it will be 

seen that slavery, though an occasion was not in reality the 

cause of the war.” . , , , 

“The doctrine of States Rights is not well understood. 

The states do not derive their rights from the Constitution, 

but the Constitution derives its rights from the states. 


49 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



in mu i ii mu ii min in iiiii mu i in i n h 

0 014 441 040 3 


“The States do not derive their rights from the Federal 
government, hut each state derives its power from the peo¬ 
ple of the state. At last the people hold the power, and it 
is not the people of all states collectively, but the people of 
each one of the sovereign states, separately, who act in con¬ 
vention representing the will of the people, so the people 
must not surrender this power to direct their local affairs 
to the government.” 

George Bancroft's “History of the United States’': 

“The Federal government is only a common agent for 
the transaction of the business delegated to it by the action 
of the states.” 


Already instances have come to notice where text books making 
false statements about the North have been rejected in South¬ 
ern schools. 


Will not the North be as magnanimous? 

The South should be as quick to resent an injustice to the 
North in history as she now resents an injustice to the South in 

history. 

«/ 

Dr. J. L. M. Curry, in his “Southern States of the American 
Nation says: 

“History, poetry, romance, art, and public opinion have 
been most unjust to the South. If the true record be given, 
the South is rich in patriotism, in intellectual force, in civic 
and military achievements, in heroism, in honorable and 
sagacious statesmanship—but if history as now written is 
accepted it will consign the ‘South to infamy. ” 

The South should not be afraid to speak the truth and call in¬ 
justice by its proper name. In failing to do this we have been 
unjust to the South. 

For fear of offending some personal friends of the North, we 
have assumed an apologetic tone too long; and for fear of fail¬ 
ing to secure an office or some honor we have allowed politics to 
make us unjust, and we have not dared to criticize Abraham 
Lincoln, and many are now falling down to worship him. 

There is no need for any animus to be shown, for no facts must 
be stated which cannot be substantiated by reliable authoritv. 
but we must not be afraid to speak boldly. By inheritance we 
of the South are not cowards. 

All I ask is that you read what is stated here. Disprove it, 
it, if you can, for I will be glad to know wherein I am wrong. 
If you cannot disprove it then accept it gracefully. Acknowl¬ 
edge your mistakes and be just. HELP TO BIGHT THE 
WBONGS AGAINST THE SOUTH and cease criticizing those 
who are trying to do it. 


50 



















